Public Interest SA laments NPA’s refusal to engage legitimate public-interest concerns in the Musa Khawula matter

Johannesburg, South Africa. Monday, 16 March 2026  — Public Interest SA notes with serious concern the response of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to representations submitted on 5 February 2026 requesting the intervention of the National Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the Musa Khawula matter.

In correspondence dated 24 February 2026, the NPA acknowledges receipt of the submission but declines to engage with the substance of the concerns raised, citing the fact that the matter is currently before the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Criminality, Political Interference and Corruption in the Criminal Justice System and that the representations were not submitted by the accused or their legal representatives.

Public Interest SA finds this position deeply troubling.

The National Prosecuting Authority is a constitutional institution entrusted with the solemn responsibility of administering justice without fear, favour or prejudice. In a constitutional democracy, this responsibility necessarily includes openness to legitimate scrutiny and engagement with civil society and members of the public who raise concerns regarding the integrity of prosecutorial processes.

To suggest that only accused persons or their legal representatives may raise concerns regarding prosecutorial conduct or request oversight by the leadership of the NPA is to misunderstand the very nature of public accountability in a democratic society. The prosecuting authority does not exercise power in isolation; it does so on behalf of the people of South Africa and remains accountable to them.

Public Interest SA’s representations were made in good faith and in the public interest. They raised concerns relating to the proper administration of justice and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. These are matters that go to the heart of public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Equally concerning is the suggestion that the existence of an ongoing judicial commission of inquiry somehow precludes the NPA from considering concerns relating to prosecutorial conduct. The work of such commissions is systemic and investigatory in nature; it does not relieve the NPA of its ongoing responsibility to ensure that its decisions and conduct withstand scrutiny and remain consistent with constitutional principles.

The refusal to meaningfully engage with concerns raised by civil society risks creating the perception that the prosecuting authority is unwilling to subject its conduct to scrutiny. At a time when public confidence in the criminal justice system remains fragile, such an approach is regrettable and counterproductive.

Public Interest SA reiterates that the credibility of the NPA rests not only on its independence, but also on its willingness to demonstrate accountability and transparency in the exercise of prosecutorial power.

“The NPA cannot claim independence while insulating itself from public scrutiny. A prosecuting authority that refuses to even consider legitimate public-interest concerns sends a troubling message — that accountability is welcome only when it comes from the accused, not from the citizens in whose name justice is supposed to be administered.”— Tebogo Khaas, Chairperson, Public Interest SA

We therefore call on the leadership of the National Prosecuting Authority to reconsider its position and to engage substantively with legitimate public-interest representations that raise questions about the integrity of prosecutorial processes.

The administration of justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.

END

Media enquiries: Tebogo Khaas

Chairperson, Public Interest SA